Overusing technology won't make you happy<\/p>\n
Vishnu K. Mahmud, Contributor, Jakarta, vmahmud@yahoo.com<\/p>\n
By nature, I am a tech junkie. Whenever the latest hi-tech
\nproduct comes out, be it a PDA, laptop computer or MP3 player,
\nI've just got to have it.<\/p>\n
When was the last time you remember seeing people carrying
\npaper-based day planners, simple calculators or cassette-based
\nwalkmans? Instead of using public phones, just whip out your
\ncell phone and make the call on the go.<\/p>\n
It seems that technology has made our lives better. Or has it?<\/p>\n
Do all these gadgets and gizmos really advance mankind? Or do
\nthey make life more complicated, and more prone to security
\nthreats and privacy problems?<\/p>\n
Considering that the cost of technology continues to fall as
\nnew products come out, are we now so dependent on advanced tech
\ntools that we have forgotten how to use simple, low-tech
\nsolutions?<\/p>\n
Take the elections for example. The General Elections
\nCommission (KPU) recently held a controversial tender for
\nInformation Technology equipment to be installed throughout the
\narchipelago. They plan to have computers in practically every
\nregency in the country in a bid to speed up the election returns.<\/p>\n
The same can be seen in the United States. California is one
\nof many states that are beginning to use touch screen voting
\ntechnology to try and avoid the comical yet tragic problems that
\noccurred in Florida during the last American Presidential
\nelection.<\/p>\n
Can these tools improve the time and accuracy of the ballot
\ncount?<\/p>\n
In America, people are beginning to ask questions regarding
\nthe viability of the technology. For example, \"close sourced\"
\nsoftware is used, making it impossible to know what exactly the
\nvoting machines are programmed to do or calculate during the
\npolls.<\/p>\n
In addition, under the original specifications, voters were
\nnot given receipts to ensure that the computers recorded their
\nballots accurately.<\/p>\n
The State of California, under intense scrutiny, ordered
\nchanges to the system as democracy advocates called for e-voting
\nstandards to be established.<\/p>\n
For Indonesia, it is planned that thousands of computers will
\nbe linked to a central data center, which would transmit and
\ntabulate the results in real time.<\/p>\n
However, the costs of the hardware and software are
\nconsiderable for a country that is still trying to crawl out of
\nthe economic crisis of the late 1990's. In the quest to ensure a
\nfast and accurate election, was a simpler method overlooked?<\/p>\n
We can perhaps look at Canada for an example. A friend of mine
\nwas recently the Deputy Returning Officer at one of the many
\nvoting stations for the Quebec provincial election last year. A
\nlife-long tech geek, she had to administer the entire process by
\nhand.<\/p>\n
Her duties included greeting people, explaining the voting
\nprocess, ensuring the sanctity of each ballot, and finally
\ncounting as well as certifying the results. After the polling
\nstation closed, it took less then four hours for the returning
\nofficers to tally the results, which were then reported to the
\nelection office.<\/p>\n
The Canadian poll did not require state of the art computer
\nsystems or touch-screen voting machines. Nor did it require
\nmillions of dollars of investment in supporting infrastructure
\nsuch as high-speed networks and electric power.<\/p>\n
The entire process in Canada was successfully conducted thanks
\nto the political involvement of its citizens and, most
\nimportantly, well organized preparations.<\/p>\n
All the technology in the world does not guarantee speedy or
\naccurate returns in a ballot count. Careful preparations and
\nopen, public participation in the elections, however, can enhance
\npublic confidence in the polls and ensure that no \"monkey
\nbusiness\" occurs.<\/p>\n
This low-tech solution is also not prone to any potential
\nsecurity or privacy problems that could ultimately plague
\ncomputer-based models.<\/p>\n
Information Technology solutions have the potential to be
\nprogrammed and diverted from their original purpose by corrupt
\nparties involved in the democratic process. An open count by the
\npeople, however, is a pretty powerful balance in any democracy.<\/p>\n
As such, we might do well to take a step back and see if we
\nare the masters of technology, or whether technology is making us
\ninto slaves. With all these gizmos, are we actually more
\norganized?<\/p>\n
In most cases, we simply stored more junk then we actually
\nneed, cluttering up our lives up with unnecessary information.
\nCan we really say we are better off than we were before?<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/overusing-technology-wont-make-you-happy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}